50,000 is not 500,000 anymore which used to be a common editorial job for photographers in favour..

companies are the winners you and the rest of us are the losers cause were to busy trying to undercut to get the job. try sticking with the quality of the work and we wouldnt have this problem

Having worked in the audio field for a while I put up with the same thing. There are a lot of parallels from audio engineering to photography as far as the business shift is concerned. But, we can all dislike it as much as we want but that's the reality of things.

Mass marketing and DSLR's coming down to consumer levels is bound to saturate the photography market a bit and make prices come down due to there being more for less, which does equal less quality most of the times. Same thing with audio were software elimited a lot of jobs from engineers. Sure, the quality is not as good nowadays but we can't fight it.

In retrospect, it's easy to slam the OP. But astronomical odds would have to come into play for the OP to not have their photo on istock, and meet the right person at the right time to get the right sum of money. Reminds of the the AOL voice that says "you got mail". In retrospect, the guy got screwed because that phrase was huge and even had a movie by the same title. But, it's easy to say that he shouldn't have done that voiceover work-for-hire now without knowing what a phenomenon it would become. Imagine the leasing bill sent to AOL for use of the phrase. Then again, AOL would probably re-record a different phrase and popularize it so voice-over actor would get screwed there.

Nice cover! Unfortunately you got screwed on that one with only $30. Did you get the credit line or did iStock?

Book, hardcover dust jacket not more than 10,000 copies, $800. $400 for each additional 10,000 copies. Soft cover, $400 not more than 10.000 copies with $400 for each additional 10,000 copies. With credit line.

Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.

Something is not right about that picture.

It might be helpful when making such emphatic statements that you back up your assertions with some actual documentation. If you have independent sources that back up your claim that a cover assignment for a weekly newsmagazine carries a $10k fee, I'd like to see it. Monthly magazines with similar or greater circulations pay about half that much. A weekly I know of that has 4x that circulation pays only half that. Where are you getting your figures?

The tear is worth something. You weren't in position to make 10 grand off of a Time cover. But I think if potential clients see that cover on your website/blog it adds instant value to your brand. Your glass is half full. You might even be able to get some PR out of the story. Im actually pretty sure that you could get someone to write about it if you work the right channels.

However, I find it *very* depressing to hear that with an anticipated usage of greater than 3,000,000, you are only getting paid about US$30!!! Especially from a company the size and resources of Time Warner who owns: AOL, New Line Cinema, Time Inc., HBO, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW Television Network, TheWB.com, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Kids' WB, The CW4Kids, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, CNN, DC Comics, and Warner Bros. Games.

What's next? Playboy only paying $20 to the next centerfold model?

No wonder the country and the world for that matter are in the worst economic downturn since the great depression!

Sterlin Images wrote:You might even be able to get some PR out of the story. Im actually pretty sure that you could get someone to write about it if you work the right channels.

For sure! Contact FOX news and/or Bill O'Reilly and/or The O'Reilly Factor! I'd love to see this rip off story in his Talking Points memo! Who knows, maybe Billbo will give you a free copy of his latest book! Look at the free publicity you will get, not to mention the extra $2.00 when you put his book up for sale on ebay!

PYPI FASHION wrote:Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.

Something is not right about that picture.

Dan Howell wrote:It might be helpful when making such emphatic statements that you back up your assertions with some actual documentation. If you have independent sources that back up your claim that a cover assignment for a weekly newsmagazine carries a $10k fee, I'd like to see it. Monthly magazines with similar or greater circulations pay about half that much. A weekly I know of that has 4x that circulation pays only half that. Where are you getting your figures?

My quote is for point of reference only. I never claimed his stock image is worth $10K. In fact, the first thing I said is "Not for stock image..."

I was a member of www.editorialphoto.com before and have seen rate surveys for Time magazine from actual images sold to them. They have paid much more than $10K but $10K is not an unusual number. Let's say for the moment that my number is off by a factor of 10X and Time really pays $1,000 for a cover shot for worldwide distribution. Based on that estimate, $30 is still a travesty.

Now consider I was paid $550 for a 70K run. That's a real number because I cashed the check. Also consider that if a similar image was purchased from www.gettyimages.com under a rights managed license, the fee would be $1,995.00. Do you still consider the $10K number a fantasy number?

paul cameron wrote:stock imagery is another watering down of the perceived value in photography

companies gain.. not the photographer.

a fine example of why not to use stock

if their was no stock sites companies would have to pay someone their rates which would keep them in their job for another week

paul

So the OP would get zero and somebody else would get paid for that cover, probably one of the staff photographers.

When we put images up on a microstock site, we are accepting the pay scale in exchange for not having to do marketing, negotiating, and fulfillment of gigs.

FWIW, there is a new thread on the iStock forums about one of the contributors passing 500,000 downloads. That's probably in the million-dollar range for royalties. iStock was founded in 2000 and went pay in 2001, so even if that guy has been there since the beginning itâs a good piece of change.

I know several people who are making a fulltime living from iStock. No clients to deal with, no proposals, they just shoot what they want when they want.

well i'm impressed regardless that time is a cheapskate. they could have used some other stock photo for the same pittance, but they chose yours, so bravo to you! it's great to get paid what we deserve, but it's dangerous for an artist to confuse what somebody's willing to pay and the quality of our work. you made a great shot and it was acknowledged on a very huge scale. you're on track, so forget the $30 bucks and keep on making great pics!

Congrads.!!!, true stock agencies don't pay a lot per images used, but the credit and exposure is great, as long as they give you credit for the image(s) !.........damn sorry those cheap SOB, but it's a cut throat business.

PYPI FASHION wrote:Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.

Something is not right about that picture.

My quote is for point of reference only. I never claimed his stock image is worth $10K. In fact, the first thing I said is "Not for stock image..."

I was a member of www.editorialphoto.com before and have seen rate surveys for Time magazine from actual images sold to them. They have paid much more than $10K but $10K is not an unusual number. Let's say for the moment that my number is off by a factor of 10X and Time really pays $1,000 for a cover shot for worldwide distribution. Based on that estimate, $30 is still a travesty.

Now consider I was paid $550 for a 70K run. That's a real number because I cashed the check. Also consider that if a similar image was purchased from www.gettyimages.com under a rights managed license, the fee would be $1,995.00. Do you still consider the $10K number a fantasy number?

Wow, just wow, Getty would have only charged almost $2000, for the cover of TIME, my how this industry has slipped. It is downright depressing, companies like Istock and Microstock should be put out of business, no wonder a judges ruling thought a professional photographers images were only worth $7.00 each, that is another story about the loss of photos by Corbis if you are not familiar with it. But a magazine that charges roughly $400,000 for a full page ad would stoop to the level of paying $30 for a magazine cover. I make a minimum of $100 everytime I have a thumbnail image published in Sports Illustrated and guess what that is a subsidary company of TIME. I find this outragous and I am torn about if that should be reported through the media or if it will backfire and more magazines start using istock when they can get a cover for $30. I mean it wasn't even worth $30 to put the image up on their service, that's what a meager website should be paying for thumbnail web image. I'm just floored and extemely depressed. The cover may potentially help the OP get additional work but it's besides the point on how TIME just found a way around paying what they usually pay for a cover image, depressing, just depressing, I'd be pissed not happy if I had that cover. I've turned down numerous opportnities to be published because they wouldn't pay for my pictures, heck a small magazine in Florida called Towtimes paid $500 to me to shoot a portrait of a guy standing in front of his towtruck for a calendar insert. I would remove all my images from istock now if I were you and would repost them to a service like photoshelter, you will get true value for you images.

The bottom line is that when you shoot for stock (I do) 90% of your stuff if going in church bulletins, school yearbooks and stuff you'll never see. Occasionally, big budget clients will use your image for front covers and usage which historically was valued at much more. Fact is, istock, Getty, Corbis, etc. aren't going anywhere. So you either shoot for them or you don't. I don't think arguing about the ethics of the whole thing is even worth the bandwidth. /rant

Wow, just wow, Getty would have only charged almost $2000, for the cover of TIME, my how this industry has slipped. It is downright depressing, companies like Istock and Microstock should be put out of business, no wonder a judges ruling thought a professional photographers images were only worth $7.00 each, that is another story about the loss of photos by Corbis if you are not familiar with it. But a magazine that charges roughly $400,000 for a full page ad would stoop to the level of paying $30 for a magazine cover. I make a minimum of $100 everytime I have a thumbnail image published in Sports Illustrated and guess what that is a subsidary company of TIME. I find this outragous and I am torn about if that should be reported through the media or if it will backfire and more magazines start using istock when they can get a cover for $30. I mean it wasn't even worth $30 to put the image up on their service, that's what a meager website should be paying for thumbnail web image. I'm just floored and extemely depressed. The cover may potentially help the OP get additional work but it's besides the point on how TIME just found a way around paying what they usually pay for a cover image, depressing, just depressing, I'd be pissed not happy if I had that cover. I've turned down numerous opportnities to be published because they wouldn't pay for my pictures, heck a small magazine in Florida called Towtimes paid $500 to me to shoot a portrait of a guy standing in front of his towtruck for a calendar insert. I would remove all my images from istock now if I were you and would repost them to a service like photoshelter, you will get true value for you images.

I suspect Getty would charge Time more than $2,000 for the actual rights. I was only able to calculate U.S. rights and Time needs worldwide rights plus reproduction rights into the future.

Timothy Hughes wrote:The bottom line is that when you shoot for stock (I do) 90% of your stuff if going in church bulletins, school yearbooks and stuff you'll never see. Occasionally, big budget clients will use your image for front covers and usage which historically was valued at much more. Fact is, istock, Getty, Corbis, etc. aren't going anywhere. So you either shoot for them or you don't. I don't think arguing about the ethics of the whole thing is even worth the bandwidth. /rant

I think you're confusing microstock with stock agencies. $2,000+ is a fair usage rate for the Time cover. I'm not sure what $30 is.

Derick Hingle wrote:Oh interesting tidbit here, TIME sells the same cover matted for 11x14 for $19.95 so TIME makes the money back they paid for the cover with two purchases of the cover, lol. This just gets worse.

Derick Hingle wrote:Oh interesting tidbit here, TIME sells the same cover matted for 11x14 for $19.95 so TIME makes the money back they paid for the cover with two purchases of the cover, lol. This just gets worse.

Wow, that's just wrong. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that if he hadn't had the stock image up, it would have been someone else's photo. I don't think they paid enough but they would probably have not paid him if his photo weren't out there.

I really don't agree with the sale of the framed cover without some compensation to him though. That's just ridiculous.

PYPI FASHION wrote:I think you're confusing microstock with stock agencies. $2,000+ is a fair usage rate for the Time cover. I'm not sure what $30 is.

Ok, I do agree with you that $30 is not a fair rate. However, if one of my istock shots made the cover of Time I would accept it and move on. I've already accepted their TOS agreement and sometimes I get paid a lot for images and sometimes I don't. It's kind of a weird time we live in where valuation of images is whatever the clients "wants" to pay. There are currently stock websites (which I will not publicly name) that Time could have downloaded a cover shot for free. Or, they could have gone on Getty or a rights-managed site and gotten a similar image for $2000. If the OPs image is exactly what they were looking for, than so be it.

Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.

The OP chose to place the shot on istock with a prearranged sale price of $30.....TIME Magazine or anyone else can purchase the photo and use it as per the terms under istock. The Photographer has received a lot of mileage from the shot regardless of whether he made 10K or not. I would venture to say that the OP's photo would never have been seen by anyone, let alone be used as a TIME Mag cover if he had not placed the shot on istock.

Getting known in this industry, at any level does consist of putting yourself out there on many levels - the marketing value alone from the TIME Cover will place the OP into another category from the perspective of 'published' and credible - in the eyes of both peers and perspective clients. For this I would say congratulations and also add that the other commenting photographers here would be very well served to diversify and attempt the same, especially those earning less than 30 or 40 k per year from this as a 'career'. Being lucrative and successful comes with time, variety, a little leverage, understanding, dedication and 'shit house luck' too.

$ 30 bucks - grab a drink - take more stock shots - market the TIME Cover to your advantage - and hope to see more of your successes soon, well done mate !